Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A post on another thread debated that Jesus was born of a virgin and that the Greek Word parthenos only refers to a young "marriageable" woman and does not refer to a "virgin". So this is a thread to debate the meaning of parthenos.
What say you?
Paul
From messages Mary and Jesus have given to our channelers, she knew Joseph before they conceived Jesus. No mystical spirit impregnated her and Joseph is Jesus true father. God is the Father of our souls and man is the father of the material body.
The Greeks conceived of gods born in supernatural ways and without benefit of mortal fathers, and this idea goes back to the Buddhist religion. In writings dealing with Buddha, it is described how Buddha's mother was transported to a mythical heaven and there impregnated in a mysterious way with the child Buddha, without the aid of a husband. The writer of the Gospel of Luke was very much affected by this story, and wishing to give Jesus the status of God, ascribed to Jesus events analogous to what he found in the writings on Buddha.
From messages Mary and Jesus have given to our channelers, she knew Joseph before they conceived Jesus. No mystical spirit impregnated her and Joseph is Jesus true father. God is the Father of our souls and man is the father of the material body.
The Greeks conceived of gods born in supernatural ways and without benefit of mortal fathers, and this idea goes back to the Buddhist religion. In writings dealing with Buddha, it is described how Buddha's mother was transported to a mythical heaven and there impregnated in a mysterious way with the child Buddha, without the aid of a husband. The writer of the Gospel of Luke was very much affected by this story, and wishing to give Jesus the status of God, ascribed to Jesus events analogous to what he found in the writings on Buddha.
You spilling commentary at this point Reverand1111. You say "the writer of the Gospel of Luke was very much affected this story". That statement amounts to opinion which is very void of any factual support.
Well the apostle Paul did not seem to know anything about Jesus being born of a virgin and one would think he'd have mentioned it if he did. Since Paul's letters are older than the Gospels (where Jesus' virgin birth is claimed) one could assume that this was a later inerpolation.
A proof support for parthenos being translated as "virgin'. Consider this verse:
KJV
1Co 7:34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
The verse breaks down a difference between a wife and a virgin. One is unmarried (which means to not have been joined to the flesh of another - commited the sexual act). The other is married (which means having been joined to the flesh - having performed the sexual act).
This verse therefore shows that a virgin is one that has not committed the sexual act. If parthenos (above verse translated as "virgin") had meant "young woman" then this verse would make no sense. For surely a young woman could have been married (joined to the flesh - performed the sexual act).
So in summary that verse clearly shows that a parthenos is one that could not have been MARRIED (had sex).
You spilling commentary at this point Reverand1111. You say "the writer of the Gospel of Luke was very much affected this story". That statement amounts to opinion which is very void of any factual support.
Paul
No, that just shows that the writer, the one who edited Lukes original, was affected by the story. And, you have no idea what is fact regarding that. Do you know Luke personally in order to ask of the writings? I didn't think so.
No, that just shows that the writer, the one who edited Lukes original, was affected by the story. And, you have no idea what is fact regarding that. Do you know Luke personally in order to ask of the writings? I didn't think so.
You have no factual basis for your comments. Provide more than simple conjecture Reverend1111 if you want to be taken seriously.
You have no factual basis for your comments. Provide more than simple conjecture Reverend1111 if you want to be taken seriously.
Paul
Well there are two kinds of "proof". One is based on the mind and one is based on the soul. I know in my soul, which knows truth better than the mind, that what that commentary stated is true. Even Luke has stated that what he supposedly wrote in the bible is not true. Now, I don't adhere to the bible and I'm no genius at history, however, I do know that regarding the bible, it is not 100% truth and is not the word of God.
And, I don't really have to prove anything. Look it up yourself. Oh, wait, if it's not in the bible it can't be true, right?
We can use these verses to get an idea of the context the word is used and how the meaning of "virgin" defines the context and how the translation of young woman defines the context. Sound reasonable?
Paul
Yep.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
